The shyster's game

[MoreCoffee]

May I play the shyster's game with you?

Donald trump allegedly deserves one's vote at least in part because he is allegedly a very wealthy man. His alleged wealth is a sign of his reputed success hence he is apparently the best choice for President so one ought to vote for him.

Let's apply that to your choice of religious faith

Which church is allegedly the most wealthy? It's alleged wealth is a sign of it's reputed success hence it is apparently the best choice for true church so one ought to vote [with one's feet] by joining it, right?

remember this is the shyster's game. The one that some folk appear to believe applies to voting for USA president.

:smirk:

 

[MarkFL]

Donald Trump was born wealthy and remained wealthy (at some point he replaced the platinum spoon in his mouth with his foot)...in that regard he's much more like Paris Hilton than Sam Walton or Bill Gates. He's also anything but original, so I would posit he doesn't resemble the RCC in any way.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Donald Trump was born wealthy and remained wealthy (at some point he replaced the platinum spoon in his mouth with his foot)...in that regard he's much more like Paris Hilton than Sam Walton or Bill Gates. He's also anything but original, so I would posit he doesn't resemble the RCC in any way.

My shyster's game is fun to conceive but I do not recommend it for voting or for choosing one's church. Wealth does not equate to goodness nor does it equate to intelligence not does it equate to truth - it appears to be neutral regarding these matters despite the best efforts of some to teach otherwise.

 

[MarkFL]

I agree...a person's character is what should be examined when searching for good or evil, not the amount of wealth they may have amassed, either though inheritance and dumb luck, or though actual hard work and business acumen. For a wealthy man, I would look at how he has used his wealth to help the less fortunate and improve the lives of others, that is, his philanthropy.

When we look at the philanthropy of Trump, we find him described as the least charitable billionaire ever.

 

[tango]

May I play the shyster's game with you?

Donald trump allegedly deserves one's vote at least in part because he is allegedly a very wealthy man. His alleged wealth is a sign of his reputed success hence he is apparently the best choice for President so one ought to vote for him.

Let's apply that to your choice of religious faith

Which church is allegedly the most wealthy? It's alleged wealth is a sign of it's reputed success hence it is apparently the best choice for true church so one ought to vote [with one's feet] by joining it, right?

remember this is the shyster's game. The one that some folk appear to believe applies to voting for USA president.

:smirk:

I wouldn't vote for someone just because they are wealthy. It takes little skill to inherit a fortune. (Likewise I won't vote for someone just to make history by having the first black president, or the first female president, or the first disabled president, or whatever other "first" comes down the line later on).

I can't say I've come across anyone who thinks we should vote for Donald simply because he is wealthy. If that were the only reason to vote for him you'd be better off writing in Bill Gates.

As for which church is the most successful, the church doesn't measure success in earthly terms so I don't know that I'd go there

 

[tango]

My shyster's game is fun to conceive but I do not recommend it for voting or for choosing one's church. Wealth does not equate to goodness nor does it equate to intelligence not does it equate to truth - it appears to be neutral regarding these matters despite the best efforts of some to teach otherwise.

Wealth as a number in and of itself means nothing. The wealthy person might have inherited billions (i.e. expending no effort to acquire it), they might have won it (thereby expending only marginally more effort than the heir), they might have earned it through shady business practices, or they might have earned it through genuine and sustained effort.

Some wealthy people are incredibly self-entitled (the sense of entitlement is frequently inversely proportional to the effort expended to acquire the wealth) while others appreciate that they have opportunities denied to many and are very genuine people. Curiously the same applies to poor people.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wouldn't vote for someone just because they are wealthy. It takes little skill to inherit a fortune. (Likewise I won't vote for someone just to make history by having the first black president, or the first female president, or the first disabled president, or whatever other "first" comes down the line later on).

I can't say I've come across anyone who thinks we should vote for Donald simply because he is wealthy. If that were the only reason to vote for him you'd be better off writing in Bill Gates.

As for which church is the most successful, the church doesn't measure success in earthly terms so I don't know that I'd go there

The first disabled president is already taken by the four terms of FDR

 

[tango]

The first disabled president is already taken by the four terms of FDR

Perhaps, but that was before it was a big thing to be the first of whatever.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps, but that was before it was a big thing to be the first of whatever.

Yes, perhaps the media had not yet created the circus we see today in the primaries and presidential elections.

 

[tango]

Yes, perhaps the media had not yet created the circus we see today in the primaries and presidential elections.

Fixed that for you

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fixed that for you

Looking back at civil war times maybe the circus came and went a few times and it is here now ... God willing for a short time only.

 

[MarkFL]

Politics has always been a circus, populated by show-stealing evil clowns.

 

[tango]

Looking back at civil war times maybe the circus came and went a few times and it is here now ... God willing for a short time only.

Now the media seems to have one goal, to generate anger and division. I suppose a people who are massively divided along lines of race/age/income/class/sexual orientation/class/etc are easier to control.

 

[psalms 91]

Personally I think control is what it is all about

 

[Stravinsk]

May I play the shyster's game with you?

Donald trump allegedly deserves one's vote at least in part because he is allegedly a very wealthy man. His alleged wealth is a sign of his reputed success hence he is apparently the best choice for President so one ought to vote for him.

Let's apply that to your choice of religious faith

Which church is allegedly the most wealthy? It's alleged wealth is a sign of it's reputed success hence it is apparently the best choice for true church so one ought to vote [with one's feet] by joining it, right?

remember this is the shyster's game. The one that some folk appear to believe applies to voting for USA president.

:smirk:

My shyster's game is fun to conceive but I do not recommend it for voting or for choosing one's church. Wealth does not equate to goodness nor does it equate to intelligence not does it equate to truth - it appears to be neutral regarding these matters despite the best efforts of some to teach otherwise.

Compare bold statements to one another.

To underlined statement: According to Yeshua - great power and wealth is not neutral. At least, not neutral enough to allow camels to slip through the eye of needles.